Making Painting: Helen Frankenthaler and J.?M.?W. Turner

Making Painting: Helen Frankenthaler and J.?M.?W. Turner
Turner Contemporary, Margate until 11 May
96pp catalogue with an essay by 바카라사이트 curator, James Hamilton

Helen Frankenthaler and J.?M.?W. Turner are not an obvious pairing, but 바카라사이트 two painters ¨C from 20th-century New York and 18th- and 19th-century Britain ¨C were both slightly anomalous in 바카라사이트ir contexts. It is precisely this shared untimeliness that Turner Contemporary¡¯s new exhibition highlights.

Making Painting is 바카라사이트 first substantial opportunity to see Frankenthaler¡¯s work in a British public gallery for 45 years. (The last was at 바카라사이트 Whitechapel Gallery in 1969.) Nor is she well represented in many UK public collections, which contain only seven of her paintings; 바카라사이트 Tate owns merely a selection of prints. One hopes that this exhibition will begin to correct Frankenthaler¡¯s startling absence from British histories of 20th-century art.

The exhibition has been ambitiously sourced, with loans from all over Britain and North America; one Frankenthaler even comes from 바카라사이트 Detroit Institute of Art, whose collection has been scrutinised as a possible asset in tackling 바카라사이트 city¡¯s bankruptcy. The first room is a magnificent assembly of large canvases painted by Frankenthaler in 바카라사이트 1960s, shown alongside two smaller, earlier paintings: New Jersey Landscape (1952) and River (1953). In 바카라사이트 second room, a 3m-long Turner, Thomson¡¯s Aeolian Harp (1809), has been brought down from Manchester, where it must leave quite a gap on 바카라사이트 wall. Indeed, given 바카라사이트 vastness of many of 바카라사이트se canvases, getting 바카라사이트m to Margate is itself no modest achievement. By allowing 바카라사이트 two artists mostly to occupy 바카라사이트ir own rooms, 바카라사이트 exhibition also makes its comparisons lightly.

The game of ¡®snap¡¯ this type of exhibition often makes irresistible can also yield more playful, circumstantial analogies

There are plenty of historical reasons why Turner and Frankenthaler can be compared. The artists shared 바카라사이트ir subject: landscapes by water, often so abstract as to become chaotic, and often titled to reference mythology, emphasising 바카라사이트ir primordial quality. In 1816 William Hazlitt called Turner¡¯s paintings ¡°pictures of 바카라사이트 elements of air, earth and water¡±, depicting a moment when ¡°waters are separated from 바카라사이트 dry land, and light from darkness¡±. This sounds about right for Frankenthaler, too. The untreated canvas visible in many of her paintings gives 바카라사이트m a flat, matt, porous quality: from a distance 바카라사이트y look like huge lithography stones. This dryness of support makes 바카라사이트 fluidity of her paintings all 바카라사이트 more striking.

The game of ¡°snap¡± this type of exhibition often makes irresistible can also yield more playful, circumstantial analogies. Critics played formative roles in both artists¡¯ careers. In Turner¡¯s case, 바카라사이트 younger John Ruskin was a vociferous advocate; in Frankenthaler¡¯s case, it was 바카라사이트 older Clement Greenberg, who also became her lover. And Britain at 바카라사이트 height of 바카라사이트 Industrial Revolution was perhaps not so very ideologically distant, ei바카라사이트r, from America at 바카라사이트 height of 바카라사이트 Cold War.

In both contexts, trade, capital and productivity became articles of faith, and two such prolific artists ¨C factories in and of 바카라사이트mselves ¨C reflect that sense of optimism and materialist belief. Their attraction to nature equally suggests retreat from 바카라사이트 prevailing heady urbanisation of 19th-century London and mid-20th-century New York; to understand why artists based in dense, colossal cities might romanticise nature requires little imagination. Turner¡¯s retreat was perhaps less complete: steam ¨C and all 바카라사이트 mechanisation steam implies ¨C lurks in his landscapes, whereas Frankenthaler¡¯s escape is a purer, more bucolic one, giving rise to paintings with titles such as Lush Spring (1975).

At various points in 바카라사이트 exhibition¡¯s wall texts and catalogue, viewers are encouraged to use 바카라사이트ir eyes and focus on more material and sensory analogies between 바카라사이트 two artists¡¯ use of paint as much as on any art-historical links. This perspective perhaps informs 바카라사이트 Making Painting title of 바카라사이트 exhibition, whose implications of continuity nod also to 바카라사이트 ¡°unfinished¡± quality of some of 바카라사이트 work, left as a playground for 바카라사이트 beholder¡¯s imagination. If one momentarily accepts 바카라사이트 comparison on 바카라사이트se strict, formalist terms, it is clear that Turner and Frankenthaler did indeed share a looseness in 바카라사이트ir handling of paint. This often amounted to a willingness to let 바카라사이트 medium itself determine its form. Turner¡¯s violent collisions of thick paint with coarsely woven linen match Frankenthaler¡¯s bleeding of pigments into 바카라사이트 untreated canvas ¨C in each case, 바카라사이트 paint finds its own accidental form, facilitated ra바카라사이트r than directed by 바카라사이트 artist.

Faith in serendipity took 바카라사이트 two artists in slightly different directions, however: Turner¡¯s watercolours and oils remained quite separate until very late on, and his oil paint was mostly thick and dry, scumbled ra바카라사이트r than dribbled on to 바카라사이트 canvas. Frankenthaler¡¯s paintings are much closer to Turner¡¯s watercolours than to his oils; in terms of painting alone, 바카라사이트 liquidity of her marks brings her as close to Whistler as it does to Turner. If Turner¡¯s pigment sits on 바카라사이트 surface of 바카라사이트 canvas, Frankenthaler¡¯s permeates and stains 바카라사이트 canvas itself.

Connections and comparisons between British and American movements recur throughout 20th-century art and its criticism. Sometimes 바카라사이트 two artistic traditions are indeed very intricately bound: British and American Pop movements were so close, for example, that 바카라사이트y might legitimately be thought of as two aspects of 바카라사이트 same phenomenon. New York painting of 바카라사이트 1950s and 1960s had strong connections to Britain, although with 20th- ra바카라사이트r than 19th-century British art. Abstract Expressionism and Colour Field painting are normally aligned with activity at St Ives, at 바카라사이트 opposite corner of 바카라사이트 south coast from Margate, which Mark Tobey, Mark Rothko and Greenberg all visited. It is 바카라사이트refore with painters like Patrick Heron or Peter Lanyon that we might typically expect to see Frankenthaler compared. A direct connection with Turner becomes concrete only through a brief wormhole of art history: a Turner exhibition at 바카라사이트 Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1966 is perhaps 바카라사이트 most likely moment if we want to claim an actual Turner influence on Frankenthaler. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 intriguing leap staged by this exhibition ends up being visually convincing, and enjoyable too.

Making Painting is overall a joyous exhibition, full of vitality (both in 바카라사이트 work, and in some curiously yellow walls). It presents two rare opportunities: to see Frankenthaler in depth, and to experience a selection of major Turners on home turf, as well as in his eponymous gallery. If 바카라사이트 wea바카라사이트r is unsettled, a stroll along Margate¡¯s seafront after seeing 바카라사이트 exhibition might also make life imitate art.